Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Twitter is a CultMarx club, God is dead, fat women are ugly, and fidelity is a hetero thing

The 2016 iteration of the GSS is out. There are some new items that will further highlight how open borders and diversity kill libertarianism dead. They'll take some time to work through. For now, a brief miscellany of interesting tidbits:

- The survey is primarily funded by the National Science Foundation and administered by the University of Chicago. The only explanation for the inclusion of and ability to cross-reference the following two variables is that the Chateau's virtual visitors are everywhere, operating at all levels of society--mostly clandestinely (for now)--and that a few of them were surreptitiously able to include interviewer assessments of respondents' weight and physical attractiveness.

The following graph shows the percentages of women in each assessed weight class who were judged to be unattractive and attractive by those conducting the surveys. Ratings of average physical attractiveness are not shown (n = 1,473):

We see that 34.4% of the "very overweight" were rated as unattractive (first black bar) while just 3.7% of those who are "about the right weight" are evaluated as such (third black bar). That is, war pigs are an order of magnitude more likely to be viewed as unattractive than are women who maintain a healthy weight.

The more pictures of Lena Dunham there are in the world, the uglier a place the world becomes.

If a woman maintains a healthy body weight it's unlikely she'll be aesthetically offensive. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking a Goldilocks on the scale is at least a Plain Jane as a tail. It's also easier for a woman who could use a little more meat on the bones to be pretty than it is for a chubster.

- Even if it's magnanimously granted that the push for and acceptance of same-sex marriage was primarily driven by a desire for perceived equality, it looks like a redefinition of the institution is going to be a consequence.

Over now the last six consecutive survey years, the GSS has asked married respondents, categorized by sexual orientation, whether they have ever had sex with someone other than a spouse while married. While the sample sizes for gays and bisexuals are still small (46 and 108, respectively), the results have stayed consistent from year to year as more data points are added. Here are the most up-to-date figures on the percentages of those who have had sex with someone other than a spouse while married, by sexual orientation:

That meshes perfectly with the 2010 New York Times article that mentioned a survey of San Francisco gays finding that half of them had sex outside of their relationships, often with the approval of their partners. It's not so much that fags aren't faithful as it is that they aren't monogamous.

- The Twitterverse was on its way to being an SJW echo chamber before the proscription lists started netting Jack Dorsey his dissident scalps. The following table shows the distribution of broad political orientation among Twitter users and the broad political orientation of the US as a whole:

Get on Gab. Even if we're unable to troll quisling Goodwhites, we need our own comparable platforms.

- Christian America fades further back in the distance of post-Christian America's rear view mirror. In 2016 the share of all Americans who have no religious affiliation, 21.7%, hit its highest mark in the survey's more than four decade history. A new record was also set among those under the age of 30, with 32.3% claiming no religious affiliation. Fewer than half of those under 30 now attend a religious service more than once a year.

Most millennials only see the inside of a church--if they ever see it at all--for weddings, funerals, or maybe with the extended family on Christmas or Easter. As an early millennial, my age cohort will be the last for whom the shared generational experience of going to church on Sundays, sitting through Sunday school, being involved in a youth group, will exist.

Or at least that's the way things appear to be heading. But we are not passive agents in the future ourselves and our posterity will inhabit. If you're feeling pessimistic about the future, remember that through your veins runs the blood of people who have done more with less.

11 comments:

Piggbacking on my earlier link to birth rates (https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year), we've now probably entered a phase closer to what most Europeans have had for the last 40-50 years. The combination of secularism, high living costs, emphasis on female striving, and indifference to self-indulgent behavior is wonderful for Leftists who struggle when people are happily married and well-behaved.

Who blew it up? Primarily those born from about 1920-1960. Earlier births weren't as privileged and reckless towards The Great Question (how diverse should we be ideally?), while later births haven't had the same economic and cultural clout as older people.

About the only reason for being positive is that however liberal they may be, later born people in at least some parts of the U.S. and Europe are fed up with immigrants driving up the cost of housing and child rearing. And also fed up with being bludgeoned by pro-diversity propaganda that seems indifferent to the psychological and economic impact of forced integration. Integration is forced by default, since people always naturally gravitate towards their own, though the level of discomfort caused by ignoring this instinct is lower is probably lowest in those born in the 40's, 50's, and 60's who tend to be the most individualistic and hedonistic.

Lastly, there's no reason anything has to last forever. And I get the sense that transitions into and out of cultural epochs are gradual. For example, the earliest pangs of a desire to diversify America were seen shortly after WW2, but weren't fully accepted until the 70's. So right now, a lot of X-ers and Millennials are pretending to be good liberals on The Great Question (even when many of them either voted Trump or didn't vote at all) since we're just not close enough to the exit of the diversity dungeon. For what it's worth, my X-er boss begrudgingly voted for Trump (she's a Christcuck), but I can tell she's gradually warmed to more ethno-nationalist ideas as opposed to focusing on moral and/or economic issues but being indifferent to ethno-cultural issues. But we're still a good 5-10 years from being able to freely express opposition to diversity when around larger groups of strangers (even if said group is all-white). At least in the less shit Liby areas, ya know that it's becoming more ok to complain about Muslim terrorists to a Boomer or early X-er (older people are less interested in being verbally conformist to current trends).

Also, elites are the quickest to adapt to a self-centered, glib, striver life-style (e.g., promoting drugs, draft dodging, and miscegenation in the later 60's) but are the slowest to relinquish decadence when the climate shifts away from it. Those of lower class tend to push the hardest against negative changes and for positive changes. Draft dodging was much less common among those who came from prole families, while opposition towards gays and drugs was common among non-elites well into the 1990's.

Who gave us Roe V Wade? An elite activist court. Who changed the DSM view of gays in the 70's? Elite and heavily Jewish professionals (verbal/intellectual elites are disproportionately gay and Jewish).

Although nobody needs a graph to know that ideal weight women are more attractive than overweight and underweight women, it is very useful that we finally know that underweight women are still more attractive than obese women. It seems that men prefer women in the following order.

With regards to the gays, gays being promiscuous won't make straights more promiscuous. After all, the existence of black married couples has not made white married couples more promiscuous. The existence of white married couples has not made asian married couples more promiscuous. Do you really want your line of logic to be taken to its conclusion? Maybe black men should be banned from marrying black women since they have a higher rate of cheating than whites. Maybe white men should be banned from marrying white women since they have a higher rate of cheating than asians.

There is different evolutionary criteria working on the question of ability to procreate (the past) and elective desire to procreate (the present). Fornication frequency is no longer tied to procreation (beyond a minimum of once, obviously). To the contrary, the GSS shows that the people with the most children in contemporary America are those who've had exactly one lifetime sexual partner. That holds for both men and women. Does the sub-replacement fertility problem eventually work itself out? Japan is going to be the first real life experiment for that question.

Anon,

The key difference is, as I noted, "It's not so much that fags aren't faithful as it is that they aren't monogamous". In the case of blacks, infidelity is still generally viewed as a problem. Gays change that. If gays marry, and gays do not think of marriage as monogamous, will heterosexuals continue to treat marriage as at least an implicit pledge of monogamy?

Just found a GSS gem. In 2014 (the height of globalism), they asked: "are you a citizen of the world".

Restricted to whites only, 11% of Mountain whites said yes strongly, while 8.9% in the Pacific said yes strongly. That's 2-3 times more people than in other regions (seems like I finally found something New England isn't liberal on). Mormons or something?

Not that it's a shock, but non-whites are more likely to identify as worldians.

> There are some new items that will further highlight how open borders and diversity kill libertarianism dead. They'll take some time to work through. For now, a brief miscellany of interesting tidbits:

At this point I can't help but think that libertarianism is almost as degenerate as modern day liberalism to the point where it is a distinction with little difference. The concept that you just throw up your hands, declare that you're an island, and just let the world around you go to shit is very troubling. That you let your people get subsumed by the diversity hordes while you polish your gold coins seems deranged.

I don't hear much about libertarianism these days, even though Johnson (Bongson) got 3.3% of the popular vote in 2016. I'm thinking that the alt right is becoming the go-to alternative political viewpoint for young people whereas a decade ago it was libertarianism, at least in my experience. I could be totally wrong about this. If I am right, then I'm hoping it is because people today realize that America is more than a shopping mall built over magic dirt.

He garnered 3% of the vote being as dopey and forgettable as possible. What a waste.

A waste for them, that is. For us, it's great. A lot of people, especially younger white guys, find their way to the Alt Right after flirting with libertarianism for awhile. We're entering an era where interests subjugate principles. Libertarianism is all about principles. It's time, such as it was, has come and gone.